US7752071B2 - Job analysis - Google Patents
Job analysis Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- US7752071B2 US7752071B2 US10/486,252 US48625204A US7752071B2 US 7752071 B2 US7752071 B2 US 7752071B2 US 48625204 A US48625204 A US 48625204A US 7752071 B2 US7752071 B2 US 7752071B2
- Authority
- US
- United States
- Prior art keywords
- value
- job
- generating
- entity
- impact
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Expired - Fee Related, expires
Links
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/10—Office automation; Time management
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
- G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
- G06Q10/0631—Resource planning, allocation, distributing or scheduling for enterprises or organisations
- G06Q10/06311—Scheduling, planning or task assignment for a person or group
- G06Q10/063112—Skill-based matching of a person or a group to a task
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
- G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
- G06Q10/0637—Strategic management or analysis, e.g. setting a goal or target of an organisation; Planning actions based on goals; Analysis or evaluation of effectiveness of goals
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
- G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
- G06Q10/0639—Performance analysis of employees; Performance analysis of enterprise or organisation operations
- G06Q10/06398—Performance of employee with respect to a job function
Definitions
- the present invention relates to job analysis, and in particular to methods of generating values that may be used to quantify a job, and a system for executing the method.
- a process, performed by a computer system, for generating data representing a job value for a job including:
- FIG. 1 is a diagram of a preferred embodiment of a diagnostic system
- FIG. 2 is schematic diagram of impact data held in the diagnostic system
- FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram of input data held in the diagnostic system
- FIG. 4 is a flow diagram of a diagnostic process executed by the system.
- FIG. 5 is a diagram of a business driver model.
- the diagnostic system 2 executes a method for identifying, defining, measuring and comparing the contribution work or jobs make to an entity, such as an organisation or employer.
- the method involves assessing work using a set of discrete variables and can be applied to all kinds of work at all levels in an entity.
- the method is executed on the basis of data stored in data tables of the diagnostic system, as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 .
- the system is able, to display the results of the job analysis, after selection is made concerning the values of attributes to be assigned to a job.
- the data can be represented in spreadsheet form, as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 .
- the diagnostic system 2 is a standard personal computer system having software code stored on disk storage thereof to execute the steps described below.
- the steps executed by the software can be executed by dedicated hardware components.
- the steps may be executed on one computer system or executed in a distributed manner across a number of systems connected by a communications network, such as the Internet.
- the values derived from the method can also be determined directly from the attribute data for the variables, as described below.
- FIG. 5 illustrates a model for defining how work contributes to the achievement of organisational purpose.
- This model identifies all the key elements involved in achieving organisational success and indicates how these elements should be aligned and integrated.
- the section of the model which specifies the elements of Structure and Accountabilities 40 and People Capabilities 42 defines how work should be carried out.
- ‘Structure’ defines the way that work is linked across an organisation
- ‘Accountabilities’ define the results expected from each job
- ‘Capabilities’ define what individuals need to have in order to fulfil the job requirements.
- the organisation may be any employer entity, such as a large public company, government department, small business, or single person. These two elements are important for organisational effectiveness. Effective utilisation of available organisational resources is dependent on appropriate alignment and integration of these two elements.
- People Capabilities 42 can be identified and measured according to ‘Input’ variables, and Structure and Accountabilities 40 according to ‘Impact’ variables, discussed below, and this makes it possible to determine relative measures for work.
- Structure and Accountability are most directly influenced by Business Platforms 44 , the processes that drive the operations and create value for customers and Organisation Culture 46 , how work is done (e.g. who makes decisions about what, how problems are solved and innovations made). These in turn are influenced by what the organisation sets out to achieve, Strategic Objectives 48 , and what its people aspire to, Vision, Mission and Values 50 , which are shaped and articulated by Leadership 52 at all levels. These elements, which are shown on the left of FIG. 5 , have a longer term and transforming effect on the operations by influencing structure, people, process and rewards. It is also these things that drive investment in the future of the organisation. Investment can be considered not only from an external perspective where various public companies compete for capital investment from the market, but also form an internal perspective where various operations within the company compete for investment allocations from limited corporate resources.
- the contribution work, activities or jobs make to the entity's purpose can be identified, defined, measured and compared according to a set of variables used by the diagnostic system 2 .
- the variables used are: (i) Impact and (ii) Input.
- Impact represents the intended effect of the job on the entity.
- Input represents attributes of the job and in particular the capabilities required to resource the job.
- Dimensions or attributes of Impact are accountability, representing the results expected; and type, representing how results are achieved.
- Dimensions or attributes of Input are: knowledge, representing the level of knowledge required; integration, representing coordination and synchronisation of required resources; and interpersonal, representing skills required to relate to and lead others.
- variables used to generate the Impact and Input values are:
- values can be obtained for Impact (IMP) and Input (INP) using the process shown in FIG. 4 .
- the procedure dictated by Equation (1) prescribes a weighting of 3 to accountability at level 1, but above level 1 prescribes an average weighting of 2.5.
- the diagnostic system can execute a procedure based on equation 1, as shown in FIG. 4 , or can simply access the values for Impact from the data table, as shown in FIG. 2 , using the accountability and type values as an index.
- a user of the system simply has to submit an accountability value and a type value for the job.
- the data values for the Accountability and Type variables entered by a user of the system or predetermined for a particular job selected by the user, are accessed by the system 2 for use in the generation procedure of FIG. 4 .
- Kn represents the knowledge value
- Ip represents an interpersonal value.
- Knowledge is given a weighting of 2 and integration a weighting of 1 below level 4, but a weighting of 2 above level. 4.
- the knowledge requirement is more significant than integration in achievement of the job's objectives.
- the requirement to integrate activities and resources is more important than it is at the lower levels and has been weighted at the same as knowledge at these levels.
- Interpersonal has a weighting of 1. Again, the diagnostic system either executes a process, as shown in FIG.
- the Impact and Input values can also be derived directly from a spreadsheet including these values related to the respective variables.
- a measure to determine whether a job has been allocated or positioned correctly can be represented by the difference between Impact and Input. This is because when jobs are correctly designed and operate at optimum effectiveness, there is a fundamental balance required between the Impact of a job and the Input required to successfully achieve the Impact.
- Generation of the job design value is based on two principles. The first is that Impact is relatively more significant than Input at higher levels of Accountability because process complexity and the extent of effect of jobs are leveraged on the resources required for optimum performance. The second principle is that Input is relatively more significant than Impact at higher levels of Type because the team and advisory levels of Type require more collaboration and expert knowledge for optimum performance. Accordingly the job design value (JD) can be compared directly with the difference between Impact and Input to assess the allocation and positioning of jobs in an organisation for optimum effectiveness.
- OE Organisational effectiveness
- IC IC+OS
- OS structure and accountabilities.
- the diagnostics system, and the methods that it executes, are therefore particularly advantageous as they enable a number of measures to be obtained concerning the worth of a job to an organisation or entity. This can then be used to provide objective job value measures for a number of purposes, including justification for setting remuneration for jobs, succession planning, dismissal disputes, and negotiations with unions.
Abstract
Description
-
- generating an impact value representing effect of said job on an entity, such as an organization or employer;
- generating an input value representing attributes of said job;
- generating data representing said job value on the basis of said impact value and said input value, wherein said job value provides a definitive measure of contribution of the job to the entity; and
- displaying the job for use by said entity, using said data.
- (i) Accountability (Acc). This represents results expected from the job. Levels of Accountability are indicated by the judgement job holders are expected to exercise to achieve the required outputs, and are determined by the complexity of the processes involved and the extent of their effect on an entity. Seven levels of accountability, each with a number of sublevels are defined, as shown in
FIG. 2 . The levels are constrained by and represent a known path for a job. They notionally also represent the limits of individuals. For example,level 1 may represent the accountability of a painter who has been employed to paint a room of a house. This type of job may have a number of sublevels up to 4 so that the painter can progress from an apprentice up to a person in charge of team of painters.Level 2 accountability may represent a job held by an interior designer who is responsible for the appearance of the room. For each level and respective sublevel an accountability value is assigned, ranging from 1 to 16, as shown inFIG. 2 . - (ii) Type. This represents how the job has its most important and direct impact on the entity's results. Three types are defined having
values FIG. 2 . For example, a team leader may be assigned a value of 1, a team member may be assigned a value of 2, and a job having a support or advisory role is assigned a value of 3. - (iii) Knowledge (Kn). This represents the type and level of knowledge required to perform the job at a competent level. Six levels are defined, as shown in
FIG. 3 .- The levels are assigned values from 1 to 6, representing increasing knowledge. A job requiring only a foundation understanding of a process (PF) will be allocated a value of 1, a job requiring a standardised understanding of a process (PS) is allocated a value of 2, whereas a job requiring an advance understanding of a process (PA) is assigned a value of 3. The remaining levels represent concept universal (CU), concept specialised (CS) and concept expert (CX) being allocated
values 4 to 6 respectively. The concept universal level represents an entry level which may be having acquired a university degree, whereas the concept specialised level represents the acquisition of knowledge that may have been acquired in the workplace after acquiring the degree. The concept expert level indicates that the knowledge represents that of an international expert in the field, for example an expert in business management.
- The levels are assigned values from 1 to 6, representing increasing knowledge. A job requiring only a foundation understanding of a process (PF) will be allocated a value of 1, a job requiring a standardised understanding of a process (PS) is allocated a value of 2, whereas a job requiring an advance understanding of a process (PA) is assigned a value of 3. The remaining levels represent concept universal (CU), concept specialised (CS) and concept expert (CX) being allocated
- (iv) Integration (In). This represents a requirement in the job to coordinate, integrate and direct resources. Nine levels are defined, from
values 1 to 9, as shown inFIG. 3 , with the highest level representing high integration skills. For example, the activities of jobs at the first level do not require any integration with the activities of others. Jobs at this level of integration are ‘stand alone’ and do not require the individual to coordinate or link with the actions of others for successful completion. Jobs at the highest level of integration, however require an individual to lead multiple profit centres representing different unrelated businesses, markets or regions of the world. This requires significant integration of major streams of activity for the organisation to be successful as a whole. - (v) Interpersonal (Ip). This represents skills required to relate to and lead others. Five levels are defined, as shown in
FIG. 3 , fromvalues 1 to 5. Again the highest value represents excellent interpersonal skills. For example, jobs at the first level require only minimal interaction with others while jobs at the highest level are required to lead others by shaping a vision and modelling leadership behaviours.
Impact=3(Acc−1)+(3−Type)−(Integer(Acc/2)′2 when >0) (1)
where Acc represents the accountability value. The procedure dictated by Equation (1) prescribes a weighting of 3 to accountability at
Input=2Kn+In(or (2In−3) when In>3)+Ip (2)
where Kn represents the knowledge value, In represents an integration value and Ip represents an interpersonal value. Knowledge is given a weighting of 2 and integration a weighting of 1 below
OE=f(INP,IMP,JD,IMP.sub.1,IMP.sub.2) (3)
where INP is Input for a job, IMP is Impact for a job, IMP, is Impact of a direct supervisory job and IMP.sub.2 is Impact of subordinate jobs. The organisational effectiveness for an entity, governed by a job for that entity, is therefore determinable on the basis of a function using the Input, Impact and job design values for that job and then Impact values for any supervisory roles, ie of a superior, and Impact values for any subordinate jobs associated with that job.
Claims (14)
Input Value=2Kn+In (or 2(2In−3) when In>3)+Ip
Impact Value=3(Acc−1)+(3−Type)−(Integer(Acc/2)−2 when >0)
Input Value=2Kn+In (or 2(2In−3) when In>3)+Ip
Applications Claiming Priority (3)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
AUPR6913A AUPR691301A0 (en) | 2001-08-09 | 2001-08-09 | Job analysis |
AUPR6913 | 2001-08-09 | ||
PCT/AU2002/001041 WO2003014981A1 (en) | 2001-08-09 | 2002-08-05 | Job analysis |
Publications (2)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
US20050010471A1 US20050010471A1 (en) | 2005-01-13 |
US7752071B2 true US7752071B2 (en) | 2010-07-06 |
Family
ID=3830869
Family Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US10/486,252 Expired - Fee Related US7752071B2 (en) | 2001-08-09 | 2002-08-05 | Job analysis |
Country Status (3)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (1) | US7752071B2 (en) |
AU (1) | AUPR691301A0 (en) |
WO (1) | WO2003014981A1 (en) |
Citations (4)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US4908758A (en) * | 1987-12-17 | 1990-03-13 | Sanders Michael J | Method of operating a computer for rank ordering and weighting category alternatives |
US5416694A (en) | 1994-02-28 | 1995-05-16 | Hughes Training, Inc. | Computer-based data integration and management process for workforce planning and occupational readjustment |
US6070143A (en) | 1997-12-05 | 2000-05-30 | Lucent Technologies Inc. | System and method for analyzing work requirements and linking human resource products to jobs |
EP1178425A2 (en) | 2000-07-26 | 2002-02-06 | Busitech Corporation | Remuneration calculating method, remuneration calculating apparatus, and computer memory product |
-
2001
- 2001-08-09 AU AUPR6913A patent/AUPR691301A0/en not_active Abandoned
-
2002
- 2002-08-05 US US10/486,252 patent/US7752071B2/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
- 2002-08-05 WO PCT/AU2002/001041 patent/WO2003014981A1/en not_active Application Discontinuation
Patent Citations (4)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US4908758A (en) * | 1987-12-17 | 1990-03-13 | Sanders Michael J | Method of operating a computer for rank ordering and weighting category alternatives |
US5416694A (en) | 1994-02-28 | 1995-05-16 | Hughes Training, Inc. | Computer-based data integration and management process for workforce planning and occupational readjustment |
US6070143A (en) | 1997-12-05 | 2000-05-30 | Lucent Technologies Inc. | System and method for analyzing work requirements and linking human resource products to jobs |
EP1178425A2 (en) | 2000-07-26 | 2002-02-06 | Busitech Corporation | Remuneration calculating method, remuneration calculating apparatus, and computer memory product |
Non-Patent Citations (9)
Title |
---|
HR-Guide (HR-Guide. "HR Guide to the Internet: Job Analysis: Overview." HR-Guide. 1999 ) discloses a job analysis overview including methods of job analysis such as review of job classification systems, interviews and questionnaires. * |
HR-Guide (HR-Guide. "HR Guide to the Internet: Job Evaluation: Methods: Factor Comparison." HR-Guide. 1999 ) discloses a set of compensable factors identified to determine the worth of a job. * |
HR-Guide (HR-Guide. "HR Guide to the Internet: Job Evaluation: Methods: Point Method." HR-Guide. 1999 ) discloses a point method which is an extension of the factor comparison where total point scores are derived for each job. * |
HR-Guide (HR-Guide. "HR Guide to the Internet: Job Evaluation: Methods: Ranking." HR-Guide. 1999 ) discloses comparing jobs to each other based on the overall worth of the job to the organization. * |
HR-Guide (HR-Guide. "HR Guide to the Internet: Job Analysis: Overview." HR-Guide. 1999 <http://www.job-analysis.net/G000.htm>) discloses a job analysis overview including methods of job analysis such as review of job classification systems, interviews and questionnaires. * |
HR-Guide (HR-Guide. "HR Guide to the Internet: Job Evaluation: Methods: Factor Comparison." HR-Guide. 1999 <http://www.job-analysis.net/G413.htm>) discloses a set of compensable factors identified to determine the worth of a job. * |
HR-Guide (HR-Guide. "HR Guide to the Internet: Job Evaluation: Methods: Point Method." HR-Guide. 1999 <http://www.job-analysis.net/G414.htm>) discloses a point method which is an extension of the factor comparison where total point scores are derived for each job. * |
HR-Guide (HR-Guide. "HR Guide to the Internet: Job Evaluation: Methods: Ranking." HR-Guide. 1999 <http://www.job-analysis.net/G411.htm>) discloses comparing jobs to each other based on the overall worth of the job to the organization. * |
Jones, John W., Steffy, Brian D., and Bray, Weston. Applying Psychology in Business: The Handbook for Managers and Human Resource Professionals. Lexington Books, 1991. * |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
AUPR691301A0 (en) | 2001-08-30 |
US20050010471A1 (en) | 2005-01-13 |
WO2003014981A1 (en) | 2003-02-20 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
Marr | Measuring and benchmarking intellectual capital | |
Gupta et al. | Relationship between leader member exchange (LMX), high-involvement HRP and employee resilience on extra-role performance: Mediating role of employee engagement | |
Albayrak et al. | Using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to improve human performance: An application of multiple criteria decision making problem | |
US20030083898A1 (en) | System and method for monitoring intellectual capital | |
Yang et al. | A study of implementing Balanced Scorecard (BSC) in non-profit organizations: A case study of private hospital | |
Abu-Hussein et al. | Project management factors affecting the enterprise resource planning projects’ performance in Jordan | |
Medcof | Identifying ‘super-technology’industries | |
Gupta | Strategic human resource management: Formulating and implementing HR strategies for a competitive advantage | |
WO2006039270A2 (en) | System and method for appraising job performance | |
Ion et al. | Use of ICT in SMEs management within the sector of services | |
Schoenberg | Dimensions of management style compatibility and cross-border acquisition outcome | |
Czuchry et al. | A review of benchmarking literature: a proposed model for implementation | |
Lehobo | The relationship between gender diversity and corporate profitability: The top 100 companies on the JSE Ltd | |
Huselid et al. | Human capital measurement systems as a source of competitive advantage | |
Kwak et al. | A human resource planning model for hospital/medical technologists: An analytic hierarchy process approach | |
Bailyn et al. | Fleet financial and Radcliffe explore paths of work/life integration | |
Hutton | Effective benchmarking through a prioritization methodology | |
US7752071B2 (en) | Job analysis | |
AU2002355445B2 (en) | Job analysis | |
Hirano | Diversification of employment categories in Japanese firms and its functionality: A study based on the human resource portfolio system | |
Erensal et al. | Successful adoption of macroergonomics in manufacturing: Using a multicriteria decision‐making methodology–analytic hierarchy process | |
AU2002355445A1 (en) | Job analysis | |
Cardinali | Assessing technological productivity gains: Benson and Parker revisited | |
Smith et al. | Strategic needs analysis: searching for viable solutions | |
Macharia et al. | Influence of total quality management on procurement performance in telecommunication industry in Kenya: a case of safaricom company limited |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: AEQUUS CONSULTING PTY LTD, AUSTRALIA Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:ANSON, JAMES WALTER;MOORE, WILLIAM FRANCIS;REEL/FRAME:015528/0830 Effective date: 20010830 |
|
STCF | Information on status: patent grant |
Free format text: PATENTED CASE |
|
FPAY | Fee payment |
Year of fee payment: 4 |
|
MAFP | Maintenance fee payment |
Free format text: PAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEE, 8TH YEAR, LARGE ENTITY (ORIGINAL EVENT CODE: M1552) Year of fee payment: 8 |
|
FEPP | Fee payment procedure |
Free format text: MAINTENANCE FEE REMINDER MAILED (ORIGINAL EVENT CODE: REM.); ENTITY STATUS OF PATENT OWNER: LARGE ENTITY |
|
LAPS | Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees |
Free format text: PATENT EXPIRED FOR FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES (ORIGINAL EVENT CODE: EXP.); ENTITY STATUS OF PATENT OWNER: LARGE ENTITY |
|
STCH | Information on status: patent discontinuation |
Free format text: PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES UNDER 37 CFR 1.362 |
|
FP | Lapsed due to failure to pay maintenance fee |
Effective date: 20220706 |